Free speech trumps disorderly conduct. That’s the bottom line of a case from the Minnesota Court of Appeals today which has ruled that two animal rights protesters had every right to chant loudly and even threaten violence against the mother of a fur store owner. The Appeals Court overturned the jury convictions of two men.

In its order today, the court might have also set a record for the most use of asterisks in a decision. In a 1978 case, the court said, “the supreme court held that a retreating 14-year old girl’s statement to police, f**k you pigs,” did not constitute fighting words because she directed it at two police officers sitting in a squad car located 15 to 30 feet away. The court noted that there was no reasonable likelihood that the statement would ‘tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace of to provoke violent reaction by an ordinary reasonable person.'”

Isaac Peter, 19, and Michael Lawson, 21, were arrested on disorderly conduct charges in March 2010, after a business owner told police the two yelled that “they knew where he lived; they knew where his elderly mother lived; and they knew his vehicle license plate number,” according to today’s court ruling.

The court said someone’s “conduct” can’t be separated from the “political speech,” which is protected by the First Amendment, also citing a case of a man who rode a horse through a gay pride festival in Minneapolis while shouting anti-gay epithets; and a group of people dressed as zombies protesting consumerism in the city (they were cited because they scared a girl who thought they were really zombies).

Neither of those cases constituted “fighting words,” which is the only condition under which someone’s speech isn’t protected by the First Amendment, the court indicated.

The Appeals Court also said that Minneapolis’ disorderly conduct ordinance “is in danger of being struck down unless it is restricted to prohibiting only fighting words and conduct that is not inextricably linked to protected speech.”

About the blogger

Bob Collins has been with Minnesota Public Radio since 1992, emigrating to Minnesota from Massachusetts. He was senior editor of news in the ’90s, ran MPR’s political unit, created the MPR News regional website, invented the popular Select A Candidate, started several blogs, and every day laments that his Minnesota Fantasy Legislature project never caught on.

NewsCut is a blog featuring observations about the news. It provides a forum for an online discussion and debate about events that might not typically make the front page. NewsCut posts are not news stories.

Related Blog Posts

I was curious as to how threats of violence wouldn’t result in some sort of criminal charges, but according to the decision:

“The testimony of two Ribnick Fur employees tended to corroborate Ribnick’s testimony that appellants were yelling loudly from outside the store through the closed window, that they were chanting and shouting about the fur industry and killing animals, but that they never threatened any physical harm to persons or property.”

I wonder how explicit the threats would need to be in order for charges to stick. “We know where you live” isn’t exactly frightening, but it’s not innocuous either. I’m sure there are people more easily frightened than a fur and leather shop owner who would take such language as more of a threat.

Jim Shapiro

You’ve got to be kidding me.

“they knew where he lived; they knew where his elderly mother lived; and they knew his vehicle license plate number,” ?!?

Who among us would not reasonably expect to be protected by the legal system if these words were directed at us.

I don’t wear fur or eat mammals, but these young punks clearly meant to terrorize by their implied threats – if not, why issue them.

A personal threat is one thing, but to threaten one’s family members enters into different territory.

This type of decision is what leads frightened people into taking the law into their own hands.

I was charged with Disorderly Conduct and Obstructing the legal process. Three weeks ago I was found guilty of DOC and aquitted of obstructing the legal process as a pro se litigent.

If there is a lawyer out there that would take this on Appeal, please contact me at 651-439-4991

Thank you!

Todd Sharkey

In regards to the earlier post by myself, (Todd Sharkey) I appealed the District Court’s decision and prevailed with the help of Attorney, Zorislav Leyderman. Minnesota Court of Appeals, Case Number: A11-1108.